User talk:Buldri

Feldstein-Horioka puzzle
I've tried to take a first stab at clarifying and referencing the (interesting!) article you started. It needs more work, and I'm going to try to do some more tonight -- let me know what you think. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made some edits, but if you could add some more that would be great! Buldri (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in economics
You might be interested in adding some items or references to what could potentially be an interesting article: Unsolved problems in economics. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Puzzles in economics
Looks like you have started a lot of great pages about important empirical puzzles in contemporary economics. Seems like there should be a category that links them all. Is there one already that you know of? Should we create one? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Douglas Diamond


The article Douglas Diamond has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joaquim Silvestre


The article Joaquim Silvestre has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. JBH (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert of edit
Hello Buldri,

You reverted my edit [] without an explanation.

The example provided is inappropriate as it is one of "incentive compatibility". Can you explain how it relates to the "Lucas Critique"?

Best,

JS (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jayanta

The Fort Knox example is a widely used example to explain the Lucas critique. In my opinion, it should definitely be part of this page.

Best, Buldri (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If it is widely used, there should be a few cites. Please provide, JS (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand the point you are trying to make, that actions change when policy changes. However I believe that giving an example of whether a criminal chooses to commit or not commit a crime depending upon the probability of success is not a good example for economic agents changing their economic decisions with changes in fiscal (or other) policy.

Wiki Policy NOR
Without commenting on the merits of the following text you added, I will note that it violates WP:NOR. "Statistical analysis using high-level, aggregated data would then indicate that the probability of a robbery is independent of the resources spent on guards. In order to analyze the trade-off between the probability of a robbery and resources spent on guards, the "deep parameters" (preferences, technology and resource constraints) that govern individual behaviour must be taken explicitly into account. In particular, the incentive not to rob Fort Knox depends on the presence of the guards. In other words, with the heavy security that exists at the fort today, criminals are unlikely to attempt a robbery because they know they are unlikely to succeed. However, a change in security policy, such as eliminating the guards, would lead criminals to reappraise the costs and benefits of robbing the fort. So just because there are no robberies under the current policy does not mean this should be expected to continue under all possible policies. If we do want to predict the effect of a policy experiment, we must model the "deep parameters". We can then predict what individuals will do conditional on the change in policy." You have been a Wiki editor for many years and should be familiar with Wiki policy.

Also, why did you delete the material from Galbacs' book? It is relevant and RS.

Best,

JS (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David K. Backus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Easterlin hypothesis


The article Easterlin hypothesis has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Article isn't notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ethanbas (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Following up on this; it seems you saw this notice and went ahead and added citations. While I'm still not sure if I like the article that much, it is acceptable to me now, so thanks :) I won't propose deletions for it anymore. Ethanbas (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Rational Expectaions
I asked you to cite a Reliable Source reference if you wish to include this statement in the article. It's not helpful merely to reinsert your preferred version once it's been challenged, and unsourced content can be removed at any time. SPECIFICO talk  21:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO talk The content of this paragraph has been part of this article for a long time. It should be uncontroversial, but I have added one link to renowned economist David K. Levine. Buldri (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That article does not support the distinction you draw in the paragraph you added. If it was previously in the article, I wasn't the first to challenge it and unless you can find a RS that directly supports the text of that paragraph, it should remain out of the article.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)